The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Herbert J. Gannon, Jr. ("Plaintiff") are the following: (1) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed by Lawrence Sears ("Defendant") (Dkt. No. 14); (2) Plaintiff's motion to supplement his Complaint (Dkt. No. 24); (3) United States Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe's Report-Recommendation, recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff's motion to supplement his Complaint be denied (Dkt. No. 29); and (4) Plaintiff's Objections to that Report-Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 30). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Defendant's motion is granted; Plaintiff's motion is denied; and Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed.
Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Ogdensburg Correctional Facility in 2008, Defendant violated his constitutional rights by treating his underlying criminal sentences as consecutive rather than concurrent, and failing to timely release him from custody. (Dkt. No. 1.) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, in February 2008, a decision was issued by the New York State Appellate Division in People ex rel. Gill v. Greene, 852 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dept. 2008), rev'd, 12 N.Y.3d 1 (N.Y. 2009), holding that, where sentencing minutes are silent on the issue, an inmate's prior undischarged sentences must be served concurrently with the sentence for the current offense. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that, despite the Appellate Division's decision in Gill (and despite the fact that he filed an order to show cause in July 2008 with the New York State Appellate Division and a petition for release with Saint Lawrence County Supreme Court in September 2008), Defendant denied him release from custody until January 15, 2009. (Dkt. No. 1, Part III.) Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.)
For a more detailed recitation of the factual allegations giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, and to Magistrate Judge Lowe's thorough Report-Recommendation, which accurately summarizes that Complaint. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 29.)
B. Relevant Procedural History
On November 13, 2009, Defendant filed his motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 14.) In support of his motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because (1) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting a claim under the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments; (2) Defendant is protected from liability as a matter of law by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting Defendant's personal involvement in any of the alleged constitutional violations. (Dkt. No. 14, Attach. 1.)
On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 21.) In that memorandum of law, Plaintiff "request[d] permission to file late opposition in response [sic], based upon the grounds that retained counsel . . . may not have responded to [the] motion to dismiss, at least it waiting for sentencing court [sic] to hear an application with return date for April 8, 2010." (See generally Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff further argued that a sentence of time-served is appropriate for him under the circumstances. (Id.)
On April 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his Complaint. (Dkt. No. 24.) In support of his motion, Plaintiff argues that neither he nor his counsel received notice of the New York State Appellate Division's decision that Plaintiff's underlying petition was reversed and dismissed. (Dkt. No. 24, Affirmation.) On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a supplemental affidavit in support of his motion to supplement his complaint, and attached a corrected version of his proposed Supplemental Complaint. (Dkt. No. 25.) In his proposed Supplemental Complaint, Plaintiff asserts, among other things, an additional cause of action, arising under the Sixth Amendment, apparently based on Defendant's failure to provide him with notice of an appeal from a New York State order. (Dkt. No. 25, at 8.)
On June 30, 2010, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to supplement his Complaint. (Dkt. No. 27.) In his response, Defendant argues that, because Plaintiff's proposed Supplemental Complaint fails to allege any actionable constitutional violations against Defendant, Plaintiff's motion to supplement his Complaint should be denied as futile. (Dkt. No. 27, at 2-3.)
On November 15, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lowe issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety because (1) the Complaint does not state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, (2) the Complaint does not state an Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim, and (3) the Complaint does not state a Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim. (See generally Dkt. No. 29.) Familiarity with the particular grounds of Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties.
On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted his objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 30.) In his objections, in addition to reiterating previously advanced arguments, Plaintiff argues as follows: (1) denying his motion to supplement his Complaint violates his due process rights; and (2) ...